Call For Total Smoking Ban At Thailand's Main International Airports

[utalkin2me]

Some of the comments on here surely tell you, why we need a "nanny"-state, because some addults are obviously not able to live and let live.

Ha, who are you talking about? Smokers aren't necessarily "letting people live" when they smoke around other people.

All this "nanny-state" bs is hilarious. I am sure a lot of non-smokers would love to get rid of any "nanniness", and punch smokers who refuse to extinguish their cig right in the face. You'd need govt backed protection from real people, protecting their wives and children from your smoke. Perhaps you are the ones who need nannies the most. You gotta love these F___t_rds who run to the govt when they need protection, and when they want to spew a carcinogen in somebodies face, they scream "if you try and stop me it's a nanny state". Pitiful human beings, really.

Edited May 17, 2013 by utalkin2me

[utalkin2me]

Some of this other rationale gets a huge chuckle out of me. Yeah, the cigarette lobby is one of the most powerful in the world. And the reason smoking is being banned every where now, from public places to even outside venues like college campuses to hospitals, is because.......... no reason at all..... second hand smoke doesn't kill.... it is just all a huge conspiracy theory. LOL. Omg, get real, seriously.

[Sing_Sling]

Some of the comments on here surely tell you, why we need a "nanny"-state, because some addults are obviously not able to live and let live.

Ha, who are you talking about? Smokers aren't necessarily "letting people live" when they smoke around other people.

All this "nanny-state" bs is hilarious. I am sure a lot of non-smokers would love to get rid of any "nanniness", and punch smokers who refuse to extinguish their cig right in the face. You'd need govt backed protection from real people, protecting their wives and children from your smoke. Perhaps you are the ones who need nannies the most. You gotta love these F___t_rds who run to the govt when they need protection, and when they want to spew a carcinogen in somebodies face, they scream "if you try and stop me it's a nanny state". Pitiful human beings, really.

You are aware, that in case of Swampy and other airports, smokers are "removed" to smoking- rooms already, aren't you?

So...how do you think about beer?

People get drunk and drve and kill other people, too...

So...maybe all beer- drinkers should be held in ghettos?

And by the way: I talk about both sides. Dipsh1ts that declare it is their right to smoke any time and any place...and dipsh1ts like you, who obviously are against any form of smokers regulation.

YOU need the nanny- state, because YOU are a radical, for whom the word "compromise" is as much a dirty word, as it is for "militant" smokers.

Sad, really!

Comparing beer drinking to cigs is an argument that should be beneath you, in terms of logic alone

[Neilly]

utalkin2me...you are a bigot...the sensible answer at the beginning of this thread was to improve the smoking rooms ventilation/door seals, not to ban smoking just because you and a couple of other anti smoking zealots don't like it

[siberianwarcat]

I was chatting to a friend about this. There appear to be two lobbies represented here in this thread. Smoking and alcohol which has often been used despite the context of the original post.

Just because the seals on the smoking room doors are rubbish and any extractors are insufficient, it does not necessarily follow that smoking everywhere should be banned or the resource of a space for those addicted to nicotine removed.

It does seem reasonable that non-smokers should have the right to a smoke free environment insofar as any of us should be free from unpleasant smells such as alcohol leaking from a drunken sot or even for that matter, body odor oozing from some sweaty pores.

Despite its irrelevance and only to stoke further debate, I find it interesting how the pro smoking/anti mobile lobby has always been able to protect smoking drivers from legislation. I have been a passenger in two separate RTA's with drivers lighting cigarettes.

BTW - I am a member of the pro smoking, booze and mobile brigade, but do think all things should be done in moderation and not when operating machinery.

[utalkin2me]

utalkin2me...you are a bigot...the sensible answer at the beginning of this thread was to improve the smoking rooms ventilation/door seals, not to ban smoking just because you and a couple of other anti smoking zealots don't like it

I love this stuff. Smokers who smoke around others are the bigots. In fact, they are the quintessential bigots. They have convinced themselves that their own smoke does not harm anybody, so they use their unreasonable opinion to justify their actions. It is just that their behavior randomly affects others unbeknownst to them, so they are effectively bigots speading their venom via their smoke.

As I have said, if smokers will front the cost to improve the rooms, sounds great to me. So, on the contrary, I think I am being quiet understanding. Nobody has presented a reasonable argument as to why smokers should be catered to, so the above answer of them funding their own rooms seems perfectly fair to me, as you say.

Edited May 18, 2013 by utalkin2me

[DocN]

@utalkin2me (...and I truely wish, I wasn't!)

You are at Swampy....that means probably you were IN Bangkok or you are going to be.

And you worry about the 5 seconds, you pass a smoking room, where "toxic"- level secondary smoking fumes are out to kill you?

You are funny, dude!

Ban all smoking everhere?

You are the pinnacle of tolerance, man!

I wish we had more people like you, who make THEIR standard the standard for us all.

I hope you live a happy and healthy life...I just doubt the happy - part, if you really think, the smoke in Swampy is a major problem for you!

...or anyone for that matter!

Chill, man!

[mommysboy]

I gave up smoking 5 or 6 years ago as I started to suffer nasty bouts of sinus pain and one too many chest colds. I am not aware of smoke around me at the airport at all. But since I don't need to smoke I guess I am not near a smoker's room in fact I didnt even know they had one. Wonder why other non smokers feel the need to go there? Strange behaviour that.

At my local shopping mall, smokers are even banned from smoking in the open air out on the balcony of a coffee shop. The irony here is that the balcony is just 20 metres away from 6 lines of traffic. Do I need to say more?

My sinus problem did not ease at all and actually has worsened over time in about the same proportion that car use has increased so it seems odd to me that people should bang on about smoking.

Some people are genetically disposed to lung cancer even from low doses of second hand smoke and they need to be protected I understand that and it seems that provision has been met already with a general smoking ban in places commonly used by everyone. In or around a smoker's room is not a common place and needs no such ban.

As a matter of opinion I seriously doubt the evidence pertaining to the airport is correct or that second hand smoking is as dangerous as stated. Does it come anywhere near the dangers of traffic pollution?

Still it is a controllable problem and that problem has been contained, so what's the real reason? If you are one of those people that experiences symptoms around minor exposure to smoke it seems probable that your passages are already very stressed and maybe you need to deal with your general allergic condition. Maybe start from selling your car if you have one.

[utalkin2me]

@utalkin2me (...and I truely wish, I wasn't!)

You are at Swampy....that means probably you were IN Bangkok or you are going to be.

And you worry about the 5 seconds, you pass a smoking room, where "toxic"- level secondary smoking fumes are out to kill you?

You are funny, dude!

Ban all smoking everhere?

You are the pinnacle of tolerance, man!

I wish we had more people like you, who make THEIR standard the standard for us all.

I hope you live a happy and healthy life...I just doubt the happy - part, if you really think, the smoke in Swampy is a major problem for you!

...or anyone for that matter!

Chill, man!

That is what the thread is about: if others should have to be subjected to a carcinogen to no fault of their own. I say no, you say yes. So be it. I have never said "ban smoking everywhere" in this thread. I have repeatedly stated that I think it would be great if smokers fronted the cost for their own EFFECTIVE smoking rooms. What on earth is wrong or intolerant about that? Oh, you don't know, you'd rather change my position at your convenience to make all this easier for you. It seems that is the whole problem here that people DON"T GET.... people that want others to make their life easier for them at the cost of others.

Your "chill" is sentiment s very annoying. Yeah, just chill while I smoke my cigarettes in front of you, cool out man. Yeah, this is the sentiment we have all been dealing with for decades. It is arrogant, self serving, and outright wrong. People should not "chill", when their health and the health of their pregnant wives and children are at stake, quite the opposite actually.

Edited May 19, 2013 by utalkin2me

[utalkin2me]

I gave up smoking 5 or 6 years ago as I started to suffer nasty bouts of sinus pain and one too many chest colds. I am not aware of smoke around me at the airport at all. But since I don't need to smoke I guess I am not near a smoker's room in fact I didnt even know they had one. Wonder why other non smokers feel the need to go there? Strange behaviour that.

At my local shopping mall, smokers are even banned from smoking in the open air out on the balcony of a coffee shop. The irony here is that the balcony is just 20 metres away from 6 lines of traffic. Do I need to say more?

My sinus problem did not ease at all and actually has worsened over time in about the same proportion that car use has increased so it seems odd to me that people should bang on about smoking.

Some people are genetically disposed to lung cancer even from low doses of second hand smoke and they need to be protected I understand that and it seems that provision has been met already with a general smoking ban in places commonly used by everyone. In or around a smoker's room is not a common place and needs no such ban.

As a matter of opinion I seriously doubt the evidence pertaining to the airport is correct or that second hand smoking is as dangerous as stated. Does it come anywhere near the dangers of traffic pollution?

Still it is a controllable problem and that problem has been contained, so what's the real reason? If you are one of those people that experiences symptoms around minor exposure to smoke it seems probable that your passages are already very stressed and maybe you need to deal with your general allergic condition. Maybe start from selling your car if you have one.

That is exactly the type of attitude that is so ridiculous. Please see post #191 (not mine). The fact that you feel smokers should have some inalienable right to smoke around other customers on a balcony is just mind boggling. This is the attitude that is a huge part of the problem here. Explain to me why people should be compelled to put up with cig smoke. please! If the business chooses to make it a smoker's area, I am actually ok with that, but your point is just such a self serving one. Why on earth should it not be ok for them to stop smokers from going there? The stuff smells, drives away customers, and it kills people. My god really, you need to reinvigorate your arguments.

Go see post #190 also. Please people stop with the ridiculous comparison with cars. Smoking is a bad habit that serves only the smoker, and it does not even serve the smoker at that!

You may very well be right about the evidence from the airport. But that is neither here nor there really. You could just as well be wrong.

Edited May 19, 2013 by utalkin2me

[mommysboy]

I gave up smoking 5 or 6 years ago as I started to suffer nasty bouts of sinus pain and one too many chest colds. I am not aware of smoke around me at the airport at all. But since I don't need to smoke I guess I am not near a smoker's room in fact I didnt even know they had one. Wonder why other non smokers feel the need to go there? Strange behaviour that.

At my local shopping mall, smokers are even banned from smoking in the open air out on the balcony of a coffee shop. The irony here is that the balcony is just 20 metres away from 6 lines of traffic. Do I need to say more?

My sinus problem did not ease at all and actually has worsened over time in about the same proportion that car use has increased so it seems odd to me that people should bang on about smoking.

Some people are genetically disposed to lung cancer even from low doses of second hand smoke and they need to be protected I understand that and it seems that provision has been met already with a general smoking ban in places commonly used by everyone. In or around a smoker's room is not a common place and needs no such ban.

As a matter of opinion I seriously doubt the evidence pertaining to the airport is correct or that second hand smoking is as dangerous as stated. Does it come anywhere near the dangers of traffic pollution?

Still it is a controllable problem and that problem has been contained, so what's the real reason? If you are one of those people that experiences symptoms around minor exposure to smoke it seems probable that your passages are already very stressed and maybe you need to deal with your general allergic condition. Maybe start from selling your car if you have one.

That is exactly the type of attitude that is so ridiculous. Please see post #191 (not mine). The fact that you feel smokers should have some inalienable right to smoke around other customers on a balcony is just mind boggling. This is the attitude that is a huge part of the problem here. Explain to me why people should be compelled to put up with cig smoke. please! If the business chooses to make it a smoker's area, I am actually ok with that, but your point is just such a self serving one. Why on earth should it not be ok for them to stop smokers from going there? The stuff smells, drives away customers, and it kills people. My god really, you need to reinvigorate your arguments.

Go see post #190 also. Please people stop with the ridiculous comparison with cars. Smoking is a bad habit that serves only the smoker, and it does not even serve the smoker at that!

You may very well be right about the evidence from the airport. But that is neither here nor there really. You could just as well be wrong.

I'm amazed you pass over the issue of traffic pollution so lightly, care to elaborate? Why are you so hung up about smokers burning a tiny bit of smoke outside when the air quality generally is poor and making people like me sick?. Is it ok to make me sick then, but not you? What's going on there?

Generally you do accept people have a right to smoke don't you? or this just a rant?, and hopefully you'd let people do something they find enjoyable without being subject to carping criticism, or being outcast. After all I'm sure there are plenty of things you do that others might find irritating.

Specifically, the mall owners banned smoking from the balcony of the coffee shop not the owners of the coffee shop who were happy to have smokers, after all it is outside in the not so fresh air, just a light stone throws away from 6 lines of gridlocked traffic, and most people drink their coffee inside.

Can I reiterate, by common accord smoking is banned generally inside public places, no argument about that.

When was the last time you met a belligerent ot borish smoker, me not for a long time, but clearly there are a good many belligerent and boorish non smokers.

Gete a grip will you!

[morrobay]

No, those fees and taxes can go to pay for the sick and dying you have caused over 48 years of blissful ignorance.

No, the smokers pay more than enough to cover that as well. Don't forget they also die of a young age so they also save the govt in pension payments.

Smokers more than cover any associated costs.

Funny how we never hear of any second hand smoke deaths from decades ago, must be a new phenomenon.

But then again, I have worked in civil suits where statistics where used as to the amount of deaths from smoking related diseases was an exhibit.

It was soon found that there were many 'anomalies' in those statistics ie: If you have a heart attack and are a smoker you are automatically put on that statistic as dying from a smoking related disease, even though your family may have a history of heart problems. If you had a stroke and were a smoker you were automatically put on that statistic even though other evidence indicated smoking was not the cause.

Quite simply, it was apparent that if you smoked and died you were on that statistic unless it was road crash victim or shark attack or something similar that just could not be hidden in those statistics.

And there are dummies out there that just take it all in as gospel.

I'm now so concerned about getting cancer that I just can't make myself go to the airport a couple of times a year and inadvertantly take a bit of smoke into my lungs after a pristine day in Bangkok.

I guess some just live life on the edge.

"Funny how we never hear of any second hand smoke deaths from decades ago, must be a new phenomenon"

and we also don't hear about second hand smoke related deaths now, because there aren't any!.

That study in Scientific American that I referenced in post # 286 that contained shs statistics was from the 70.s.

Like I said before I have nothing to say to smokers whatsoever except ' Nehmen Sie Die Zigarettenraucher Weg ! '

For those non - Germans that is ' Take those cigarette smokers away !

[DocN]

@utalkin2me (...and I truely wish, I wasn't!)

You are at Swampy....that means probably you were IN Bangkok or you are going to be.

And you worry about the 5 seconds, you pass a smoking room, where "toxic"- level secondary smoking fumes are out to kill you?

You are funny, dude!

Ban all smoking everhere?

You are the pinnacle of tolerance, man!

I wish we had more people like you, who make THEIR standard the standard for us all.

I hope you live a happy and healthy life...I just doubt the happy - part, if you really think, the smoke in Swampy is a major problem for you!

...or anyone for that matter!

Chill, man!

That is what the thread is about: if others should have to be subjected to a carcinogen to no fault of their own. I say no, you say yes. So be it. I have never said "ban smoking everywhere" in this thread. I have repeatedly stated that I think it would be great if smokers fronted the cost for their own EFFECTIVE smoking rooms. What on earth is wrong or intolerant about that? Oh, you don't know, you'd rather change my position at your convenience to make all this easier for you. It seems that is the whole problem here that people DON"T GET.... people that want others to make their life easier for them at the cost of others.

Your "chill" is sentiment s very annoying. Yeah, just chill while I smoke my cigarettes in front of you, cool out man. Yeah, this is the sentiment we have all been dealing with for decades. It is arrogant, self serving, and outright wrong. People should not "chill", when their health and the health of their pregnant wives and children are at stake, quite the opposite actually.

I am a non- smoker, so I would not be smoking in front of you.

Chill, while "I" am banned from smoking in bars, pubs, restaurants, airports even open-air locations in Bangkok ...BANGKOK....

Tell me EXACTLY where your and your pregnants wife health is more in danger: passing a poorly ventilated smokers- room at Swampy (by the way...are you usually forced to stand right next to one??) for 5 seconds ...or generally and basically EVERYWHERE for the rest of the 23 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds of the day?

[watcharacters]

I gave up smoking 5 or 6 years ago as I started to suffer nasty bouts of sinus pain and one too many chest colds. I am not aware of smoke around me at the airport at all. But since I don't need to smoke I guess I am not near a smoker's room in fact I didnt even know they had one. Wonder why other non smokers feel the need to go there? Strange behaviour that.

At my local shopping mall, smokers are even banned from smoking in the open air out on the balcony of a coffee shop. The irony here is that the balcony is just 20 metres away from 6 lines of traffic. Do I need to say more?

My sinus problem did not ease at all and actually has worsened over time in about the same proportion that car use has increased so it seems odd to me that people should bang on about smoking.

Some people are genetically disposed to lung cancer even from low doses of second hand smoke and they need to be protected I understand that and it seems that provision has been met already with a general smoking ban in places commonly used by everyone. In or around a smoker's room is not a common place and needs no such ban.

As a matter of opinion I seriously doubt the evidence pertaining to the airport is correct or that second hand smoking is as dangerous as stated. Does it come anywhere near the dangers of traffic pollution?

Still it is a controllable problem and that problem has been contained, so what's the real reason? If you are one of those people that experiences symptoms around minor exposure to smoke it seems probable that your passages are already very stressed and maybe you need to deal with your general allergic condition. Maybe start from selling your car if you have one.

That is exactly the type of attitude that is so ridiculous. Please see post #191 (not mine). The fact that you feel smokers should have some inalienable right to smoke around other customers on a balcony is just mind boggling. This is the attitude that is a huge part of the problem here. Explain to me why people should be compelled to put up with cig smoke. please! If the business chooses to make it a smoker's area, I am actually ok with that, but your point is just such a self serving one. Why on earth should it not be ok for them to stop smokers from going there? The stuff smells, drives away customers, and it kills people. My god really, you need to reinvigorate your arguments.

Go see post #190 also. Please people stop with the ridiculous comparison with cars. Smoking is a bad habit that serves only the smoker, and it does not even serve the smoker at that!

You may very well be right about the evidence from the airport. But that is neither here nor there really. You could just as well be wrong.

.

Would you please share with us when you stopped smoking and how much you smoked a day?

Thanks. I would love to smoke again but won't.

"I am a non- smoker, so I would not be smoking in front of you.

Chill, while "I" am banned from smoking in bars, pubs, restaurants, airports even open-air locations in Bangkok ...BANGKOK....

Tell me EXACTLY where your and your pregnants wife health is more in danger: passing a poorly ventilated smokers- room at Swampy (by the way...are you usually forced to stand right next to one??) for 5 seconds ...or generally and basically EVERYWHERE for the rest of the 23 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds of the day?"

[utalkin2me]

@utalkin2me (...and I truely wish, I wasn't!)

You are at Swampy....that means probably you were IN Bangkok or you are going to be.

And you worry about the 5 seconds, you pass a smoking room, where "toxic"- level secondary smoking fumes are out to kill you?

You are funny, dude!

Ban all smoking everhere?

You are the pinnacle of tolerance, man!

I wish we had more people like you, who make THEIR standard the standard for us all.

I hope you live a happy and healthy life...I just doubt the happy - part, if you really think, the smoke in Swampy is a major problem for you!

...or anyone for that matter!

Chill, man!

That is what the thread is about: if others should have to be subjected to a carcinogen to no fault of their own. I say no, you say yes. So be it. I have never said "ban smoking everywhere" in this thread. I have repeatedly stated that I think it would be great if smokers fronted the cost for their own EFFECTIVE smoking rooms. What on earth is wrong or intolerant about that? Oh, you don't know, you'd rather change my position at your convenience to make all this easier for you. It seems that is the whole problem here that people DON"T GET.... people that want others to make their life easier for them at the cost of others.

Your "chill" is sentiment s very annoying. Yeah, just chill while I smoke my cigarettes in front of you, cool out man. Yeah, this is the sentiment we have all been dealing with for decades. It is arrogant, self serving, and outright wrong. People should not "chill", when their health and the health of their pregnant wives and children are at stake, quite the opposite actually.

I am a non- smoker, so I would not be smoking in front of you.

Chill, while "I" am banned from smoking in bars, pubs, restaurants, airports even open-air locations in Bangkok ...BANGKOK....

Tell me EXACTLY where your and your pregnants wife health is more in danger: passing a poorly ventilated smokers- room at Swampy (by the way...are you usually forced to stand right next to one??) for 5 seconds ...or generally and basically EVERYWHERE for the rest of the 23 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds of the day?

First of all, let me put another myth to rest. It does not matter 1 single iota in this context if you are a smoker or not, or if I am a smoker or not. People need to stop mentioning this. It does not matter. It would almost be like talking about ax murderers, and mentioning before your post that you are not one, or are one. Whether you are one or not has no bearing in the discussion of if it is wrong or not. Just argue your points, or more aptly here, show people your lack of intelligible points.

To the other point, you told me to chill. I am not sure you understand cigarette smoke, or smoke in general. First, what if a person's wife works next to the smoking room? What about if your wife cleans the smoking room area? Further, there is not an invisible wall outside of the smoking rooms where the smoke stops. It gets into everything, and goes everywhere, and it stays there, especially where clothing is concerned. Again, let me give you an actual intelligible analogy so you may understand this (I assume you did not go back to post 190).

Take ANYTHING as an example. I will use the pool in my back yard off the top of my head. People put chlorine in their pools. Even though chlorine isn't good for humans, it serves a purpose. If a person wants to put a little arsenic into my pool, I will say hell no! I don't care if they tell me they will put a small enough amount that it wont hurt anybody, their opinion does not matter to me. If they want to put arsenic in their own pool, they are more than free too. Now, here we go, pay attention please.... ARSENIC SERVES NO PURPOSE IN A POOL, so, why would people want to add it? Cars definitely serve a purpose as well, cigarettes do not. Can you follow that? If not, post 190 and 191 should help.

Lastly, since you don't smoke, I am wondering why you don't follow your own advice and just "chill". This does not affect you in the slightest according to yourself. So what is your problem? Makes no sense.

Edited May 19, 2013 by utalkin2me

[mommysboy]

I gave up smoking 5 or 6 years ago as I started to suffer nasty bouts of sinus pain and one too many chest colds. I am not aware of smoke around me at the airport at all. But since I don't need to smoke I guess I am not near a smoker's room in fact I didnt even know they had one. Wonder why other non smokers feel the need to go there? Strange behaviour that.

At my local shopping mall, smokers are even banned from smoking in the open air out on the balcony of a coffee shop. The irony here is that the balcony is just 20 metres away from 6 lines of traffic. Do I need to say more?

My sinus problem did not ease at all and actually has worsened over time in about the same proportion that car use has increased so it seems odd to me that people should bang on about smoking.

Some people are genetically disposed to lung cancer even from low doses of second hand smoke and they need to be protected I understand that and it seems that provision has been met already with a general smoking ban in places commonly used by everyone. In or around a smoker's room is not a common place and needs no such ban.

As a matter of opinion I seriously doubt the evidence pertaining to the airport is correct or that second hand smoking is as dangerous as stated. Does it come anywhere near the dangers of traffic pollution?

Still it is a controllable problem and that problem has been contained, so what's the real reason? If you are one of those people that experiences symptoms around minor exposure to smoke it seems probable that your passages are already very stressed and maybe you need to deal with your general allergic condition. Maybe start from selling your car if you have one.

That is exactly the type of attitude that is so ridiculous. Please see post #191 (not mine). The fact that you feel smokers should have some inalienable right to smoke around other customers on a balcony is just mind boggling. This is the attitude that is a huge part of the problem here. Explain to me why people should be compelled to put up with cig smoke. please! If the business chooses to make it a smoker's area, I am actually ok with that, but your point is just such a self serving one. Why on earth should it not be ok for them to stop smokers from going there? The stuff smells, drives away customers, and it kills people. My god really, you need to reinvigorate your arguments.

Go see post #190 also. Please people stop with the ridiculous comparison with cars. Smoking is a bad habit that serves only the smoker, and it does not even serve the smoker at that!

You may very well be right about the evidence from the airport. But that is neither here nor there really. You could just as well be wrong.

.

Would you please share with us when you stopped smoking and how much you smoked a day?

Thanks. I would love to smoke again but won't.

"I am a non- smoker, so I would not be smoking in front of you.

Chill, while "I" am banned from smoking in bars, pubs, restaurants, airports even open-air locations in Bangkok ...BANGKOK....

Tell me EXACTLY where your and your pregnants wife health is more in danger: passing a poorly ventilated smokers- room at Swampy (by the way...are you usually forced to stand right next to one??) for 5 seconds ...or generally and basically EVERYWHERE for the rest of the 23 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds of the day?"

I used to smoke 5-10 a day although at one point this did go up to 15-20, and likewise sometimes I would just not smoke for the whole day. I started as a young teenager and smoked up to 47 years old.

It was easy to give up partly because I was in pain from my sinuses, I simply stopped and resolved never to put one in my fingers. But after a few years I realised i really enjoyed smoking.

But I will never smoke a cigarette again.

One solution is to use an ecig but wouldn't you know it that is illegal too so can't recommend it although plenty do it nevertheless.

I assume the other part of your posting concerns someone else.

I am still laughing about why someone who doesn't smoke feels the need to go out of their way to find a small room containing smokers, some folk are so daft. perhaps they just like uproar!!

Bit like someone who doesn't need to go to the toilet, nevertheless hanging around one so they can complain about the stink!!

Nuts or what!

[Mighty Mouse]

It seems that many of those posters arguing in favour of smoking around other people, honestly believe that second hand smoke is harmless.

This belief flies in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.

It also seems that many of those posters arguing in favour of smoking around other people, honestly believe that the little non-smoking man in the street is responsible for the introduction of NO SMOKING laws.

This belief also flies in the face of the facts. Smoking bans can be traced back to the 1500's. Modern day smoking bans were introduced by various governments because of mounting scientific and medical evidence showing that smoking was bad for the health of those coming into contact with tobacco smoke.

Any government that didn't act upon such solid evidence shouldn't be in office.

Medical evidence highlights the fact that following the introduction of smoking bans in various establishments, the general health of the workers performing duties in such establishments, improved significantly. This evidence cannot be refuted.

This thread is about providing a ventilated smoking room at Swampy. There is strong evidence that the extracted fumes still contain most of the contaminants of the second hand smoke. Whilst the smoking room might be situated in a remote area of the airport, the extracted fumes are pumped out into the atmosphere where they can directly affect airport workers. Therefore, the health hazards still exist.

Rather than continually, and childishly, throw the Nanny State excuse, the zealots and whinger accusations at non-smokers, why not face the facts that smoking is socially unacceptable, unhealthy and will be totally banned everywhere over the world in the not-too-distant-future.

By smoking in places that you are not legally entitled to smoke is reason enough for the backlash that now confronts you.

Making excuses and listing other contaminates as a means of justifying your smoking habits, shows just how immature you are.

If you want to continue smoking, that's fine by me, but find yourself an area, outdoors and well away from others, where you can smoke legally. Your smoking buddies will soon die off and before you know it, you'll have that little area all to yourself.

[utalkin2me]

It seems that many of those posters arguing in favour of smoking around other people, honestly believe that second hand smoke is harmless.

This belief flies in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.

It also seems that many of those posters arguing in favour of smoking around other people, honestly believe that the little non-smoking man in the street is responsible for the introduction of NO SMOKING laws.

This belief also flies in the face of the facts. Smoking bans can be traced back to the 1500's. Modern day smoking bans were introduced by various governments because of mounting scientific and medical evidence showing that smoking was bad for the health of those coming into contact with tobacco smoke.

Any government that didn't act upon such solid evidence shouldn't be in office.

Medical evidence highlights the fact that following the introduction of smoking bans in various establishments, the general health of the workers performing duties in such establishments, improved significantly. This evidence cannot be refuted.

This thread is about providing a ventilated smoking room at Swampy. There is strong evidence that the extracted fumes still contain most of the contaminants of the second hand smoke. Whilst the smoking room might be situated in a remote area of the airport, the extracted fumes are pumped out into the atmosphere where they can directly affect airport workers. Therefore, the health hazards still exist.

Rather than continually, and childishly, throw the Nanny State excuse, the zealots and whinger accusations at non-smokers, why not face the facts that smoking is socially unacceptable, unhealthy and will be totally banned everywhere over the world in the not-too-distant-future.

By smoking in places that you are not legally entitled to smoke is reason enough for the backlash that now confronts you.

Making excuses and listing other contaminates as a means of justifying your smoking habits, shows just how immature you are.

If you want to continue smoking, that's fine by me, but find yourself an area, outdoors and well away from others, where you can smoke legally. Your smoking buddies will soon die off and before you know it, you'll have that little area all to yourself.

Wow, that just bears repeating. And I have no qualms with saying you are much better with words than me. Nicely put!

I will only add, on that second point I put in bold of yours, it seems the preliminary evidence is all indicating less people with respiratory problems IN GENERAL, which is really something. This isn't a scientific source article, but it illustrates the point. One important point it illustrates is about the lack of results they got when they barred smoking ONLY from restaurants, as opposed to the dramatic drop in patients they saw after a more comprehensive public area ban - which is a strong point for our purposes here.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/29/smoking-bans-heart-attacks-strokes/1664193/

Edited May 19, 2013 by metisdead
30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[mommysboy]

It would make sense to provide some form of outside smoking house that is what they do in UK pubs.

But would that stop the rants?

[mommysboy]

Mightymouse. What is your opinion about environmental pollution, you know the small unimportant stuff like traffic pollution, road carnage, global warming.

Presumably you have equal disgust for these things or something would seem a bit awry.

I speak as a non smoker. Just interested.

[DocN]

Of course, the fact that I don't smoke matters.

It is called tolerance!

So: I want people to be allowed to smoke in bars and pubs.

Anyone who ever (i.e. before the smoking - hysteria went overboard) was going to a bar and pub, KNEW that there would be smoke.

Stay away from there OR go to bars and pubs that CHOOSE to be non- smoking. Don't exist? I wonder why!

Restaurants and non- smoking: I totally get it, though I would like them to provide (at least a covered outdoor smoking area.

And outdoor- areas, where smoking is not allowed are complete bullsh1t!

There is wind (that magical thing, that blows smoke away) and there is more pollution anyways, so...farg off!

Yes, I am for peopel being allowed to smoke.

Is it unhealthy for me?

Maybe!

Is smoke coming from the back of a truck unhealthy for me?

Maybe!

You can do something against traffic- airpollution...but of course it is much easier to take peoples personal choices away, than controlling factories, cars, busses and companies to keep the air- clean.

[Stumpy]

As a non smoker I am disgusted that the anti smoking faction has hijacked this thread to spew their bile, exhibit their extraordinary inability to deal with cognitive dissonance and their inability to see the bigger picture caused by their irrational fear of second hand smoke.

If it took you a few minutes to type your lunatic ravings, 50 people died. Another 20 have died since you started reading this message. From STARVATION. In fact 18,000+ a day die, from lack of food. Another 5,000 a day from dirty water. Mostly children.

ONE IN FIFTEEN homes in the US have higher than 'safe' levels of radon.

Annually, 10 MILLION TONS of toxic chemicals (310Kg pr SECOND) are released into the air - 20% (65Kg PER SECOND) of which are recognized carcinogens.

Go. Look it up. Now look up what percentage of that 65Kg comes from cigarettes. You won't find it. Nobody knows. BECAUSE IT'S F&*^%^G NEGLIGIBLE.

We (society) have already stopped people smoking in a HUGE number of places - and even most smokers agree, for the better. They are now, for the most part, restricted to at home, outdoors, or controlled, designated areas. SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THAT, EXACTLY?

[Sing_Sling]

As a non smoker I am disgusted that the anti smoking faction has hijacked this thread to spew their bile, exhibit their extraordinary inability to deal with cognitive dissonance and their inability to see the bigger picture caused by their irrational fear of second hand smoke.

If it took you a few minutes to type your lunatic ravings, 50 people died. Another 20 have died since you started reading this message. From STARVATION. In fact 18,000+ a day die, from lack of food. Another 5,000 a day from dirty water. Mostly children.

ONE IN FIFTEEN homes in the US have higher than 'safe' levels of radon.

Annually, 10 MILLION TONS of toxic chemicals (310Kg pr SECOND) are released into the air - 20% (65Kg PER SECOND) of which are recognized carcinogens.

Go. Look it up. Now look up what percentage of that 65Kg comes from cigarettes. You won't find it. Nobody knows. BECAUSE IT'S F&*^%^G NEGLIGIBLE.

We (society) have already stopped people smoking in a HUGE number of places - and even most smokers agree, for the better. They are now, for the most part, restricted to at home, outdoors, or controlled, designated areas. SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THAT, EXACTLY?

What a ludicrous rant . . . and another blind man to the copious numbers of papers and data on second-hand smoke. I'm an ex-smoker and will go out of my way to not be around smoke when I'm with my children but when not then I don't care if people smoke around me . . . so I don't have a bone to pick on either side.

Irrespective which 'side' you're on, to blatantly disregard science is simply ludicrous . . . now you seemingly need to relax and have a smoke, your post seems quite aggro . . . of the blood-vessel-popping style . . . . oh, and the discussion is about smoking . . . not any other tangent you may wish to make a fool of yourself in

The earth is flat.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[utalkin2me]

As a non smoker I am disgusted that the anti smoking faction has hijacked this thread to spew their bile, exhibit their extraordinary inability to deal with cognitive dissonance and their inability to see the bigger picture caused by their irrational fear of second hand smoke.

If it took you a few minutes to type your lunatic ravings, 50 people died. Another 20 have died since you started reading this message. From STARVATION. In fact 18,000+ a day die, from lack of food. Another 5,000 a day from dirty water. Mostly children.

ONE IN FIFTEEN homes in the US have higher than 'safe' levels of radon.

Annually, 10 MILLION TONS of toxic chemicals (310Kg pr SECOND) are released into the air - 20% (65Kg PER SECOND) of which are recognized carcinogens.

Go. Look it up. Now look up what percentage of that 65Kg comes from cigarettes. You won't find it. Nobody knows. BECAUSE IT'S F&*^%^G NEGLIGIBLE.

We (society) have already stopped people smoking in a HUGE number of places - and even most smokers agree, for the better. They are now, for the most part, restricted to at home, outdoors, or controlled, designated areas. SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THAT, EXACTLY?

See post 191. And if you want my whacky analogy, why not add arsenic to pools? Chlorine is in there, so why can't we add a little arsenic too? Doesn't make sense? I know, that is the point! Your arguments don't make sense at all, you're saying "something is bad, so why can't we keep doing more bad things". I don't even understand why it needs to be explained to you, and the most amazing part is you wont even get it still.

[utalkin2me]

Mightymouse. What is your opinion about environmental pollution, you know the small unimportant stuff like traffic pollution, road carnage, global warming.

Presumably you have equal disgust for these things or something would seem a bit awry.

I speak as a non smoker. Just interested.

He addresses that in his last paragraph. I will let him speak for himself though, he is much more diplomatic, patient and understanding that me But your question had been address all through the thread.

Edited May 19, 2013 by utalkin2me

[utalkin2me]

Of course, the fact that I don't smoke matters.

It is called tolerance!

So: I want people to be allowed to smoke in bars and pubs.

Anyone who ever (i.e. before the smoking - hysteria went overboard) was going to a bar and pub, KNEW that there would be smoke.

Stay away from there OR go to bars and pubs that CHOOSE to be non- smoking. Don't exist? I wonder why!

Restaurants and non- smoking: I totally get it, though I would like them to provide (at least a covered outdoor smoking area.

And outdoor- areas, where smoking is not allowed are complete bullsh1t!

There is wind (that magical thing, that blows smoke away) and there is more pollution anyways, so...farg off!

Yes, I am for peopel being allowed to smoke.

Is it unhealthy for me?

Maybe!

Is smoke coming from the back of a truck unhealthy for me?

Maybe!

You can do something against traffic- airpollution...but of course it is much easier to take peoples personal choices away, than controlling factories, cars, busses and companies to keep the air- clean.

It doesn't matter at all. Your arguments are all flawed, and the flaws have been pointed out. The fact that you don't smoke does not make your arguments any better or worse, they are still equally bad in light of the fact.

All you are doing here is making up your mind as to how much cigarette smoke will harm you. Nobody is trying to stop you, have at it as much as you want. What you can't do however, is keep telling people how much cig smoke is ok for them to expose themselves to. Especially true when your assertions are all flawed.

In fact, the logic I see here and throughout the thread makes about as much sense as standing out in the sun to heal a sunburn.

Edited May 19, 2013 by utalkin2me

[mommysboy]

People who have privately owned petrol vehicles really have no right to tell other people not to belch out smoke. Surely that is a statement we can all agree upon, or there is very little point debating at all.

That aside.

Both main anti smokers in this debate seem oblivious to the fact that there is already a comprehensive ban in place against smoking in public. If that is not being enforced in and around Bangkok you are 100% right to complain and nearly everyone on this board would agree. If this is not a good enough arrangement then one must conclude you want smoking banned full stop. Again that is a valid opinion but why don't you state so.

The smoker's at the airport are provided with a designated room away from the main areas of the airport. They are entitled to smoke there as guests.

If the room has inadequate ventilation is that really the hapless smoker's fault and surely it would have been cheaper and easier to undertake such a repair than do some silly study.

[Neilly]

Next time you get a whiff of second-hand cigarette smoke

[utalkin2me]

People who have privately owned petrol vehicles really have no right to tell other people not to belch out smoke. Surely that is a statement we can all agree upon, or there is very little point debating at all.

That aside.

Both main anti smokers in this debate seem oblivious to the fact that there is already a comprehensive ban in place against smoking in public. If that is not being enforced in and around Bangkok you are 100% right to complain and nearly everyone on this board would agree. If this is not a good enough arrangement then one must conclude you want smoking banned full stop. Again that is a valid opinion but why don't you state so.

The smoker's at the airport are provided with a designated room away from the main areas of the airport. They are entitled to smoke there as guests.

If the room has inadequate ventilation is that really the hapless smoker's fault and surely it would have been cheaper and easier to undertake such a repair than do some silly study.

For the last time, cars and transport are a necessary part of society, cigarettes are not. Why is that so hard to understand? Cigarettes are simply a person's bad habit which affect others. There is a big difference. There are only so many ways a person can say it. So, there is no agreeing upon your statement. Just the fact that you would say that indicates your lack of understanding. It's like you guys aren't understanding the uniqueness of cigarettes in the slightest. Cigarettes are harmful, they kill, AND they are not necessary in society. Please get that through your head before arguing further.

We have already been through this, but why should smokers be entitles to a room in the airport? Why should they be catered to? I am all ears. If they want to pay an entry fee to go into an effectively ventilated room, I am all for it. That would mean THEY are taking the responsibility for their bad habit. Why in the world should they not have to do that? But I will tell you what would happen if you forced them to pay for their smoking rooms, they would scream bloody murder. It is ludicrous. They feel entitled to these rooms for their habit they started by choice, and they want others to pay for them. It is the height of irresponsibility and arrogance in my opinion. For those of you who would be happy to front the money for your own smoking rooms, I have no problem with that. I would also have no problem personally with them banning smoking from the terminal altogether as the op states. Smokers should have to take care of their own problem in their own space away from others. And, if that is already the case, so be it. I am happy with that, but the op seems to indicate otherwise.

Edited May 19, 2013 by utalkin2me

[khh]

wow will this ever end? it seems to be mostly the same arguments getting recycled with different details. i think i can sum up the different sides without missing much:

1) "pro-smokers" and "anti-smokers" are all intolerant fanatics

actually i find that most people who support smoking bans are more or less libertarian -- do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. the more selfish ones would say "as long as it doesn't harm me directly" in other words they don't mind you smoking around children as long as it's not their own flesh and blood...

there are some who want smoking banned completely either because they're religious fundamentalists (found among more than one religion) or because the way they see it they will never stop being at least indirectly harmed unless smoking is ended once and for all.

many smokers are reasonable people who don't want to harm anyone, and many smokers are selfish people who don't give a f*** about anyone or anything (and of course there are some in between). it seems that as more and more people quit smoking, the selfish ones become a bigger percentage of the smoking population.

2) 2nd hand smoke is harmless or nearly harmless etc

it's 2013 now and most educated people will never believe lines like that. you can do funny things with statistics but that works "both ways". the evidence is just overwhelming.

3) there's already a smoking room at the airport (or wherever) so what's the fuss about?

the reason why smoking rooms are banned now in many countries is that they rarely meet the standards they're supposed to. this thread started because the smoking room at swampy doesn't meet international standards and the polluted air circulates through the whole building.

the same goes for many outdoor (or nominally outdoor) smoking areas. if you're standing near a door (or in the doorway like many smokers do) then that "magical" thing called wind can easily blow the smoke inside. if the owners of a mall ban smoking from balconies it's probably because they're tired of complaints from people who smelled it inside (or wanted to enjoy a smoke-free balcony) AND possibly because of thoughtless a******s throwing their cigarette butts off the balcony onto the people down below.

4) you only get exposed for a few seconds a few times a year and most people never notice.

i don't think i noticed it either (at swampy) but you don't need to notice something for it to be harmful or even deadly. and again the polluted air circulates through the building, and people who work at the airport breathe it in all day every day.

5) smoking is bad but so is drinking...

yes but most drinkers don't splash their beer on others every time they drink, don't spill their beer on chairs, etc etc. and if you're noticeably drunk in public you can be arrested (at least in some countries). whether people can be banned from public places just because they stink -- from body odor, alcohol, smoke, perfume, s**t, or whatever -- is a complex issue because people will argue over where to draw the line, but at least with s**t and piss most people are decent enough to avoid getting it all over their clothes and in their hair. smoke is a bigger problem because smokers tend not to notice they stink.

6) tobacco is good for bu$ine$$!

yes in some cases but so are many other undesirable things like slavery. tobacco farmers can be given support to make the transition to other crops.

7) you can CHOOSE to go to a smoking or non smoking place!

if there's no ban and you choose to make your business a non-smoking place, what do you do when people smoke? if you tell them it's not allowed they can just ignore you because there's no (obvious) law that they're breaking. will you call the police and complain some customers aren't respecting your "house rules"? if you tell them to leave they probably won't pay you and even if that's illegal you'll have a hard time chasing them down and even if you have specially trained tough guys to grab them, do you really want to go to all that trouble? in theory you can probably have them done for trespassing or something like disturbing the peace (laws vary a lot by country), but it puts a huge burden on business owners to set up and manage a whole system to accommodate the minority of people who do smoke.

even if an orderly system of smoking and non-smoking public places existed --

smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurants...

smoking bars and non-smoking bars...

smoking washrooms and non-smoking washrooms...

smoking malls and non-smoking malls...

smoking taxis and non-smoking taxis...

smoking hospitals and non-smoking hospitals...

smoking schools and non-smoking schools...

smoking bus stations and non-smoking bus stations...

smoking police stations and non-smoking police stations...

are you seriously going to try to force every city with an airport to have a smoking airport and a non-smoking airport?

the airlines that cater to non smokers wouldn't all fit at one airport and sometimes people need to travel for urgent reasons and can't afford to choose the airline (or bus or taxi or hospital etc etc)

and even if the customer could always choose it still wouldn't be fair to the people who have to work in smoking places because unless you're rich or absurdly overqualified or well connected you can't afford to be very choosy about your job these days! and that applies to most people.

if you're not so libertarian -- or if you're a government -- you might also decide that people who choose to smoke (1st hand or 2nd hand) are a nuisance anyway because they end up burdening the health care system and remove productivity from the economy whenever they get sick and so on... outweighing the comparatively short term benefits of tobacco taxes. but that's another discussion.

8) other sources of pollution are much bigger so why pick on an obscure smoking room most people hadn't even noticed?

i partly agree with this one. not if it's about BBQ smoke because BBQ enthusiasts don't have or ask for BBQ rooms at airports at least not that i ever noticed. (if outdoor BBQ smoke is really that bad then ok do something about it, but that's another discussion.)

not much if it's about cars because as long as public transit is overcrowded and doesn't reach most places, cars are necessary.

i do agree that open burning is a more serious issue in thailand than airport smoking rooms.

BUT just because something isn't a top priority that's no reason to avoid it. you could say corruption is the biggest problem in thailand but if you refuse to try to fix anything else until corruption gets fixed, well... i'm not holding my breath.

as smoking becomes more unpopular and people get more accustomed to smoking bans it gets easier to deal with. a few decades ago who would have dreamed of the smoking bans that exist today? a lot of progress has been made but there's still a long way to go and unlike with open burning (and corruption), achieving goals in the tobacco department actually seems possible.

if open burning dramatically decreases then people will still complain because it'll still be harmful (and like cigarettes it's not very useful, unlike cars which are very useful). but i'm sure some people, even non-burners, will rush to defend open burning because there will still be cars and factories and other sources of pollution...

if corruption dramatically decreases then people will still complain because it'll still be harmful (and more harmful than useful). but i'm sure some people will still rush to defend corruption with arguments like "they're only stealing millions now, not billions like before..."

personally i'm in favor of rooftop smoking areas with extra ventilation to make sure as little smoke as possible remains on the smokers (3rd hand smoke, there haven't been many studies of it yet but every non-smoker has smelled it) and CCTV to catch anyone who improperly disposes of a butt (the punishment should include picking it up and then being escorted to the washroom to make sure you wash your hands with soap like a good boy). and if it's raining, well tough luck you're in the same boat as everyone who wants to enjoy a picnic, no special privileges.

or IF vaporizers are truly safe and effective at satisfying the addicts' cravings then ban smoking completely and let them all switch to vaporizing but honestly i've never looked into that so i don't know if it's true.

Edited May 19, 2013 by khh